United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees October 2017 NASA HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION Integration Approach Presents Challenges to Oversight and Independence Accessible Version GAO-18-28 October 2017 NASA HUMAN SPACE EXPLORATION Integration Approach Presents Challenges to Oversight and Independence Highlights of GAO-18-28, a report to congressional committees Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found NASA is undertaking a trio of closely The approach that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is related programs to continue human using to integrate its three human spaceflight programs into one system ready space exploration beyond low-Earth for launch offers some benefits, but it also introduces oversight challenges. To orbit. All three programs (SLS, Orion, manage and integrate the three programs—the Space Launch System (SLS) and EGS) are working toward a launch vehicle; the Orion crew capsule; and supporting ground systems (EGS)— readiness date of no earlier than NASA’s Exploration Systems Development (ESD) organization is using a more October 2019 for the first test flight. streamlined approach than has been used with other programs, and officials Each program is a complex technical GAO spoke with believe that this approach provides cost savings and greater and programmatic endeavor. Because efficiency. However, GAO found two key challenges to the approach: all three programs must work together for launch, NASA must integrate the · The approach makes it difficult to assess progress against cost and schedule hardware and software from the baselines. SLS and EGS are baselined only to the first test flight. In May separate programs into a working 2014, GAO recommended that NASA baseline the programs’ cost and system capable of meeting its goals for schedule beyond the first test flight. NASA has not implemented these deep space exploration. recommendations nor does it plan to; hence, it is contractually obligating The House Committee on billions of dollars for capabilities for the second flight and beyond without Appropriations report accompanying establishing baselines necessary to measure program performance. H.R. 2578 included a provision for GAO to assess the progress of NASA’s · The approach has dual-hatted positions, with individuals in two programmatic human space exploration programs. engineering and safety roles also performing oversight of those areas. As the This report assesses (1) the benefits image below shows, this presents an environment of competing interests. and challenges of NASA’s approach for Competing Interests between Engineering Technical Authority Role and Program Role integrating these three programs and (2) the extent to which cross-program risks could affect launch readiness. GAO examined NASA policies, the results of design reviews, risk data, and other program documentation and interviewed NASA and other officials. What GAO Recommends Congress should consider directing NASA to establish baselines for SLS and EGS’s missions beyond the first test flight. NASA’s ESD organization should no longer dual-hat officials with programmatic and technical authority responsibilities. NASA partially These dual roles subject the technical authorities to cost and schedule pressures concurred with our recommendation that potentially impair their independence. The Columbia Accident Investigation and plans to address it in the next year. Board found in 2003 that this type of tenuous balance between programmatic But NASA did not address the need for and technical pressures was a contributing factor to that Space Shuttle accident. the technical authority to be independent from programmatic NASA has lowered its overall cross-program risk posture over the past 2 years, responsibilities for cost and schedule. but risk areas—related to software development and verification and validation, GAO continues to believe that this which are critical to ensuring the integrated body works as expected—remain. component of the recommendation is For example, delays and content deferral in Orion and SLS software critical. development continue to affect ground systems software development and could View GAO-18-28. For more information, delay launch readiness. GAO will continue to monitor these risks. contact Cristina Chaplain at (202) 512-4841 or [email protected]. United States Government Accountability Office Contents Letter 1 Background 4 NASA’s Integration Approach Offers Some Benefits but Complicates Oversight and Impairs Independence 10 ESD Risk Posture Has Improved, but Key Risk Areas Remain for the Integration Effort 27 Conclusions 37 Matter for Congressional Consideration 37 Recommendation for Executive Action 38 Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 39 Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 41 Appendix II: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration 44 Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 48 GAO Contact 48 Staff Acknowledgments 48 Appendix IV: Accessible Data 49 Data Tables 49 Agency Comment Letter 51 Tables Table 1: Exploration Systems Development Organization- Managed Human Exploration Programs Are Baselined to Different Missions 17 Table 2: Change in Estimated Completion Date for Nine Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Risks Active from before Design to Sync to after Build to Sync 30 Figures Figure 1: Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle Hardware 6 Page i GAO-18-28 Exploration Programs’ Integration Approach Figure 2: Select Components of Exploration Ground Systems Program 7 Figure 3: NASA’s Life Cycle for Space Flight Projects 10 Figure 4: Constellation Used Three-Level Organizational Structure 11 Figure 5: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Approach Uses a Two-Level Organizational Structure 12 Figure 6: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Integration Reviews 13 Figure 7: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Integration Budget Fiscal Years 2012-2017 14 Figure 8: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Configuration Management Records Approval Rate 16 Figure 9: Conflicting Roles and Responsibilities of Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Engineering and Safety and Mission Assurance Technical Authorities 23 Figure 10: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Progress in Reducing Risks, 2014-2017 29 Figure 11: Orion Software and Avionics Testing at Integrated Testing Lab 34 Accessible Data for Competing Interests between Engineering Technical Authority Role and Program Role 49 Accessible Data for Figure 2: Select Components of Exploration Ground Systems Program 49 Accessible Data for Figure 3: NASA’s Life Cycle for Space Flight Projects 49 Accessible Data for Figure 6: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Integration Reviews 50 Accessible Data for Figure 7: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Integration Budget Fiscal Years 2012- 2017 50 Accessible Data for Figure 8: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Configuration Management Records Approval Rate 50 Accessible Data for Figure 10: Exploration Systems Development Organization’s Progress in Reducing Risks, 2014-2017 51 Page ii GAO-18-28 Exploration Programs’ Integration Approach Abbreviations ASAP Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel CAIB Columbia Accident Investigation Board CDR Critical Design Review EGS Exploration Ground Systems EM-1 Exploration Mission 1 EM-2 Exploration Mission 2 EM-3 Exploration Mission 3 EM-4 Exploration Mission 4 ESD Exploration Systems Development ESI Exploration Systems Integration IG Inspector General ITL Integrated Test Laboratory KDP Key Decision Point MDA Missile Defense Agency MDR Mission Definition Review NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration Orion Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle PDR Preliminary Design Review S&MA Safety and Mission Assurance SDR System Definition Review SIR System Integration Review SLS Space Launch System SRR System Requirements Review V&V Verification and Validation This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page iii GAO-18-28 Exploration Programs’ Integration Approach 441 G St. N.W. Washington, DC 20548 Letter October 19, 2017 The Honorable Richard Shelby Chairman The Honorable Jeanne Shaheen Ranking Member Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations United States Senate The Honorable John Culberson Chairman The Honorable José Serrano Ranking Member Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Committee on Appropriations House of Representatives The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is nearing the point when billions of dollars invested should begin to pay off with the first launch of systems needed to support deep space exploration by humans. This deep space exploration requires the capability to transport crew and large masses of cargo beyond low Earth orbit to distant destinations including the moon and eventually Mars. The Exploration Systems Development (ESD) organization within NASA’s Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate is responsible for managing and integrating the three programs developing the specific capabilities needed. · The Space Launch